Category Archives: Atabek Shukurov

It is claimed by some that the so-called Hanafi stance on the story of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is that its a concoction and an insult to the Prophet’s stature.

The vast majority of Muslim scholars have accepted this story to be true however and have argued that it does nothing to impugn the Prophets character, or his status as the Messenger of Allah.

Muslim scholars have offered two lines of proposed assessments of the story. 1) What happened to the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a form of illness and this is not impossible for Prophets, nor does it impugn their character and prophethood. This doesn’t affect the reliability of his deliverance of the message, which is what Allah’s promise for protection ultimately ensured to secure, and 2) The magic only affected the Prophets (peace be upon him) limbs and organs, but it did not affect his heart, beliefs and intellectual capacity to convey the revelation being sent to him (i.e. it only had a significant affect on him on the outside, but not in the inside).

Secondly, its not true to characterize the rejection of this incident as a Hanafi stance just because a few Hanafi scholars may have rejected the story. An example being Abi Bakr al-Jassas who may have likely done so due to his Mutazilite inclinations. Regardless of what motivated his rejection of the story, al-Jassas doesn’t speak on behalf of the entire Hanafi school!. Rather, we find that the Hanafis have either accepted this story as either true or narrated it without objecting to it. Below we present at least five examples of these Hanafi scholars.

1) Abi Ja’far at-Tahawi (d. 321 A.H.) narrates two ahaadeeth mentioning the incident of the Prophet having a spell casted upon him and after that proceeds on to argue that black magic has remained a real part of our world up until the time of the Prophet, and consequently remains so up until ours as well…. [Sharh Mushkil al-Athaar, (al-Risaala, 1st edition, 1994; edited Shuab al-Arna’ut, Volume 15, pp.179-181]

These two ahadeeth indicate that black magic remained existing until the time the Prophet (peace be upon him) was influenced by black magic. If it (i.e. black magic) remained until that time, then its existence even after that is possible as well.

2) Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333 A.H.) in his commentary of the Qur’an makes mention of the incident without any display of criticism or rejection of it. In fact, he mentions it as a valid opinion when it comes to explaining the historical context of the revelation of Surah 113 and even goes further to demonstrate that the story serves as a proof for the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) because the story demonstrated that he was able to overcome this trial…

But according to us fi maa QEELA [regarding what had been said], i.e. that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was influenced by magic, there are two means of demonstrating his Messengership and Prophethood:

One of them is that, that the Prophet knew via revelation about the black magic spell casted on him. For this was done secretly, and no one could have known about it except via revelation.

Secondly: The recitation of the Quran quashes the effect of magic, just as the staff of Musa (peace be upon him) destroyed the effect of Pharaohs tricks. [Taweelat Ahlussuah, (al-Risaala, 1st edition, 2004; edited by Fatima Yusuf), Volume 5, p. 543]

Some have tried to suggest that when al-Maturidi says fi maa Qeela, that he is using Qeela as a seeghat tamridh in order to signify that the opinion regarding the veracity of this story is weak. However, its very critical that one pays close attention to not only the methodology of al-Maturidi, but also the context itself. The word Qeela which literally translates to it was said, could actually be used to mean just that (i.e. relaying what has been said about a certain matter).

Dr. Majdi Baslum in his introduction to the commentary of al-Maturidi (Taweelat Ahlussunnah) says that al-Maturidi commonly uses Qeela to either eliminate the isnad or to simply present a list of opinions about a matter before he proceeds on to critically assess each one of them. In other words, al-Maturidi would often use Qeela in the basic linguistic sense of it. And when we look back at his comments on the incident of the black magic spell cast on the Prophet (peace be upon him), we precisely see that this is how he is using it. Its difficult to read the Qeela here as a seeghat tamridh without imposing it upon the text and even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is indeed the case, what is crystal clear is that al-Maturidi had no theological objections to the story itself. On the contrary, he saw it as a potential positive argument for the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

3) Abi al-Layth as-Samarqandi (d. 373 A.H.) in his Quranic commentary explains the historical context of Surah 113:5 to be referring to the story of the Prophet being affected by Labid the magician…

Allah All-Mighty said: And from the evil of an envier when he envies [113:6], meaning from all envy. He intends by this Labid ibn Asma the Jew [Bahr al-Uloom, (Dar al-Kutub al-Iliah, Beirut, 1st edition, 1993), Volume 3, p. 526-527]

5) Badrul-Deen al-‘Aini (d. 855 A.H.) in his commentary on Saheeh al-Bukhari refers to those who reject the story as “heretics” (mulhideen) and refutes the theological objection to the story by demonstrating that it had no implications on Muhammad (peace be upon him) in terms of his role as the Messenger of Allah…[see: Umdat al-Qaari, (Dar al-Kutub al-Iliah, Beirut; edited by Abdullah Mahmoud Abdullah Umar, 1st edition, 2001),Volume 15, p.135]

It was narrated that Aaishah (May Allaah be pleased with her) said: A spell was put on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until he imagined that he had done a thing when he had not done it. – Of course none of this entails that there was a compromise on the ability to convey revelation.

Some heretics objected to the hadeeth of Aisha. They said: How can the magic affect the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), whilst magic is kufr and an action of the devils? How can its harm reach the Prophet (peace be upon him) while he was under the protection of Allah and Allah supporting him with the angels, and the revelation was protected from the devils? And I answer: That this objection is invalid, for Allah said to His Messenger: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak. [113:1], until He says: in knots [113:4], and Blowers: are those magicians who tie knots. None of this entails that the effect of this was permanent or that it affected him internally or his capacity as a Messenger. Rather, the effect of the magic is similar to what a sick person gets affected by when he gets a fever or pleurisy, such as weakness in speech or minor delusion. Then this disappeared and Allah quashed the plots of the magician. There is a consensus regarding the Prophets infallible ability to convey revelation. [Umdat al-Qaari, (Dar al-Kutub al-Iliah, Beirut; edited by Abdullah Mahmoud Abdullah Umar, 1st edition, 2001),Volume 15, p. 135]

In a nutshell, we observe that its absolutely false to say that the Hanafi stance is to reject the story of the black magic spell casted on the Prophet (peace be upon him). Its shoddy scholarship to take isolated opinions of individual scholars and use that to paint a stance on an entire school of thought.

Atabek Shukurov wrote a book called “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith“, translated by his student Sulaiman Ahmed. Here is a factual review of the book:

The past century and a half has been marked by scores of books, and articles written to question the authority of hadith in varying ways. Some of the proponents of these ideas were blunt and bold enough to say that they considered no hadith as a valid source of Islamic law and etiquette. There were and still are, others who do not claim to reject all hadiths but through their ad hoc approach they provide for themselves the laxity to reject almost every hadith at will. The common, identifying aspects of these groups is in their frank and loud disavowal of the traditional knowledge stream.

Atabek Shukurov’s work Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith, with translation and commentary by Sulaiman Ahmed, is however different because it makes no sweeping claims of the kind. In fact, it uses the name of the earliest and most widely followed scholarly stream within the broader Sunnite tradition. The central and incessantly repeated clamour on almost every page of the book is about rejuvenating and resuscitating the hadith approaches of the Hanafi school. And it is under this label that all the claims are made against hadith, the second primary source of the Islamic worldview.

Knowing the tree by its fruits.

The third manifestation of practical application of Hanafi methodology is in the arguments about hadith reports about the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) being affected by Black Magic. Claiming that the Qur’an is “quite clear”, and that those who claim the Prophet (ﷺ) was affected by magic are wrongdoers and that, if these reports were accepted, they would raise doubts about revelation. The author after rejecting them based on asinine assumptions about the traditional explanations offered, proceeds to claim that accepting these hadith reports and yet being outraged at the publications of the Prophet’s caricatures, “alludes to double standards” (p.241). Finally, as in the beginning of the book (p.4) it is claimed that Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (d. 333) rejected the hadiths on this account, and denied that the last two chapters of the Qur’an were revealed on this background (p.242). It is, however, striking to note that far from rejecting the hadith and the incident of magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ), Al-Maturidi actually finds in it, a two-fold proof of Prophethood (wajhān fi ithbāt risālatahu wa nabuwatahu). (Ta’wilāt Ahlul Sunnah, Vol.10, 653)[1] Besides Al-Maturidi, the major Hanafi authority in Hadith, Abu Ja’far Al-Tahawi (d. 321) also accepted the hadith about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ) (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Hadith 5935). Among Hanafis Al-Jassās (d. 370) surely rejected the hadith on the subject but this rejection was due to his theologically Mu’tazalite inclinations rather than his expertise as a Hanafi jurist.

Factual errors, insinuations, frauds

The work is also riddled with factual errors, insinuations and even outright fraudulent statements. For instance, it is claimed that Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) had “students who were Maturidi in theology” (p.8) when the founder of the Maturidi school was born no earlier than 235 AH. It is like saying Ibn Mas’ud (d. 32 AH) or ‘Alqama bin Qais (d. 70 AH) were Hanafis.

In arguing against the preservation of hadith the author claims that while we have the divine guarantee for protection of the Qur’an there is no such promise in favor of the hadith reports (p.109). In an attempt to refute the “salafi” claim that Qur’an 15:9 entails the same promise for hadith as well, the author states, “why God does not say what he means if he indeed meant ‘hadith’ when he says ‘Qur’an’” (p.110) while the verse in question (i.e. Qur’an 15:9) does not really use the word “Qur’an” it simply says “dhikr”. It is, however, pertinent to note that just a few pages later the verse is translated correctly and the word ‘Qur’an’ is mentioned only in parenthesis (p.118), apparently because unlike in p.110, there the purpose was not to neutralize an argument for hadith preservation.

In his mention of ‘problems’ with the black magic hadith, in the prologue to the book there is another factual misrepresentation by Atabek Shukurov. He mentions “Abdullah ibn Omar Al-Baidawi”, the author of Anwār Al-Tanzil as “a Hanafi scholar from the thirteenth century” (p.4) whereas in reality Al-Baidāwi was a recognized Shafi’i scholar as evident from his juristic discussions in his tafsir and also from the accounts in biographical dictionaries. That his tafsir is largely a condensation of Hanafi_in_Fiqh Al-Zamakhshari’s tafsir and many later Hanafis wrote glosses over it is not enough to classify Al-Baidāwi as a Hanafi.

Using weak and even fabricated hadith reports to emphasize textual criticism

Regarding the treatment of specific narrations, while the undertone across all chapters of the book is that as per Hanafi methodology isnād analysis alone is not enough to separate the chaff from the wheat, and that textual (matn) criticism is very important, what we find is that in many cases the examples brought are hadith reports that are isnād-wise signally, weak and at times outright fabrications.

On p.36 a report reading “The first thing that was created was a horse, then himself [God]. Then the Prophet (ﷺ)” is mentioned. Besides the fact that the translation is not faithful the hadith has been recognized as a fabrication. In fact the reference cited for this narration is a Shafiite Al-Suyuti’s “Al-La’ali Al-masnu’ah fi Al-ahadith Al-mawdu’ah” (The Fake Pearls in Fabricated Hadiths), and yet right after quoting the above report it is stated that, “even if the chain is authentic according to the Shafi’is, this is irrelevant to Hanafis” (p.36), which clearly insinuates that Shafi’is somehow accept the chain of this report as authentic.

As an example of “an ahād hadith that is accepted as ‘Sahih’ (according to Shafi’is and Salafis)” contradicting the Qur’an, the author quotes the narration from ‘Umar given by Abu Dawud etc. “The husband will never be asked [by God] concerning the reason for hitting his wife” (p.118). However, many prominent scholars including the ‘celebrated’ salafi hadith scholar Al-Albani have declared it as weak. Others who showed its weakness or graded it as such include ‘Ali bin Al-Madini (as quoted by Ibn Kathir in Musnad Al-Fārūq), Ibn Mulaqqan Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad Shakir, Muhammad bin ‘Abdul Muhsin Al-Turki, Mustafa Al-’Adwi, and Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut.

There is more queer stuff in an example of ahād reports contradicting theology which as quoted in the book reads, “Then above the seventh heaven there is a sea, between whose top and bottom is a distance …” This has been referred to as “a Sahih hadith narrated in Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah …” (p.124) and the citation for this is the Al-Risalah’s First Edition (2009) of Sunan Abu Dawud Hadith 4723 (p.293), but if we check this work we find that the editor Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut has categorically stated that the report is “da’if” (weak). Likewise, the Salafi scholar Al-Albani has also graded it as weak. One wonders how the author fabricated the notion of hadith being “Sahih” in the first place when the very citation he brings mentions its weakness.

Along with the hadith reports from the Messenger of Allah, there is a similar oblivion with regards to a narration from Imam Abu Hanifa. On p.11 the author refers to a report from Tarikh Baghdad wherein it is alleged that Abu Hanifa called a hadith (which is narrated in Sahih Bukhari as well) a “delusion”. However, as clarified by the editor of the referenced edition the report is dubious as it is related on the authority of a weak narrator.

More play on narrations

At one place the author takes exception to a hadith reported by Abu Dawud etc. condemning people who do one of four things including “twisting one’s beard” (p.65). The hadith is clearly mistranslated. The hadith actually condemns “one who ties (a knot in) his beard” (man ‘aqada lihyatahu). Moreover, the author not only refuses to see the actual context of condemnation in the practice being a remnant of the pre-Islamic (jahili) practices, he claims that the hadith was largely unknown and that “Umar had the habit of twisting his beard as did other Sahabah”, and as a reference he provides Al-Tabarani’s Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer, Hadith 54 is cited (p.282). Yet, when we check the cited source we find that it mentions Umar’s twisting of the mustaches, and not beard, in state of anger. The author, as we can see, resorts to two-fold fraud (twisting for tying and beard for mustaches) to cast aspersions on an otherwise authentic hadith.

Disregard for Interpretive devices. Boldness in rejecting hadiths

For the authentic reports discussed, the author is always in a hurry to reject the hadith reports and seeks to attribute rejection of them by Hanafi scholars. He makes no mention of the use of interpretative devices like ta’wīl (interpretation other than the apparent), takhsīs (specification), tansīkh (abrogation), or tatbīq (reconciliation) etc. It reminds one of Al-Tahawi complaining that one interpreting the hadith differently should not be accused of rejecting it (Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Vol.2, 134). It seems Atabek Shukurov and co. who claims to revive the Hanafi methodology has taken the approach of intra-Islamic polemicists that Al-Tahawi -arguably the most prominent hadith scholar among the Hanafis ever-once encountered, but they are doing it to a more dangerous end.

Atabek Shukurov takes up the issue of another hadith translated in his book as, “When two people engage in a transaction, each of them has the right to choose to annul it as long as they haven’t parted and are still together …” (pp.10-11) Using the statements of the scholars who differed with Imam Abu Hanifa’s position and accused him of going against it, Shukurov brings it as an example of “some hadith which are completely rejected based on a variety of principles” (p.10). The reality of the matter, however, is simply that Imam Abu Hanifa interpreted the hadith differently. He said the parting mentioned in the hadith is not in the physical sense, but rather in the sense of agreement. (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Vol.13, 272)

However, it is to be noted that in the above quoted translation of the hadith, the words “and are still together” are unwarranted and actually against the interpretation made by Imam Abu Hanifa. Among “the hadiths [that] are rejected by Hanafi principles”, according to the author, is a “hadith narrated in Abu Dawood by Abu Hurairah; “the illegitimate child is the most evil of the three [meaning out of the mother, father and child”” (p.119). Al-Tahawi Al-Hanafi, however, feels no qualms in accepting this hadith because he brings a report in which Aisha, the mother of the believers, explained the right context of the narration, in that it was actually about a specific person. Al-Tahawi further elucidates that the hadith is not general about every illegitimate child, rather it was specific to a person who hurt the Prophet (ﷺ), and the Prophet (ﷺ) pronounced that he was more evil than his mother and the man who illegally begat him. (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Vol.2, 367-369).

The author then brings the hadith “in Tirmidhi that “whoever drinks wine, then, lash him. If he return to it, then on the fourth time kill him”” as an example of reports contradicting the action of their narrators. He then argues, “this hadith was completely ignored by the Sahabah and never implemented” and therefore, he says, “the Hanafis also reject this hadith” (p.121). Hanafis, like others, do not question the authenticity of this hadith and instead argue that it was in fact abrogated as stated by Al-Tahawi (Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Hadith 4944).

As already noted not all Salafi and Shafi’i scholars have accepted the hadith translated in the book as, “The husband will never be asked [by God] concerning the reason for hitting his wife” (p.118). Furthermore, whereas the author alleges that it contradicts the Qur’anic verse, “If women are obedient do not oppress them” (4:34), it is important to note that the scholars who accepted it (or did not dwell on its authenticity) actually reconciled it with the Qur’an and understood it within the parameters of the said verse.

Since the first part of the verse 4:34 mentions conditional permission to correct wives, Mulla Ali Al-Qari (Al-Hanafi) says “it is for someone who remains mindful of the stipulations and limits regarding hitting” (idha ra’a shurut al-darb wa hududahu) his wife which naturally include not being harsh to her if she remains obedient. (Mirqat al-Mafatih, Vol.6, 375). Worryingly, the notion of a contradiction is fabricated by inserting the words “by God” in the translation of the hadith. In reality the hadith is not by the way of information as to what is not questionable in the sight of Allah, rather it is an instruction to the people that if a husband hits his wife to the extent permissible then they should not infringe their privacy by questioning him about it as is evident from the context in which ‘Umar narrated it (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 122).

On the science and narrators of hadith

The producers of this book seem to be on a mission to reject everything that Muslims in the West, the vast majority of whom are uninitiated in the Islamic sciences find difficult to comprehend. Thus we find that besides attacks on peculiar hadith reports, the axe also falls on the very science of hadith. It is alleged that the “chain of a hadith can be fabricated quite easily” and that “an expert forger” can work in ways “ensuring that the narrators and chains are acceptable” and he, the forger, “can then add any text to this chain and after a few generations when it has been become [sic] widespread it is considered a Sahih hadith, … especially if this tradition is then later narrated in one of the highly respected canonical collections of hadith” (p.110). In hardly minced words the seed of doubt has been sown with regards to all the hadith collections and hadith reports. The emphasis on textual criticism over and above isnād criticism has taken an override and as an unfortunate consequence, isnād criticism is laid to rest.

The book highlights criticism of ‘Ikrama, the freed-slave of Ibn ‘Abbas (pp.133, 227-228) and goes on to claim that “it is agreed by consensus that he was from the Khawarij” (p.228). Besides the questions around merit and the truth of this allegation against ‘Ikrama, the claim of consensus on this point is certainly false. Ahmad, Al-‘Ijli and Al-Tabari are reported to have vindicated ‘Ikrama of this accusation. (Fath Al-Bāri, Vol.1, 428).

Among the weirdest things is the comparison of Muslim narrators and their reports with those of St. Paul and other Christians. In criticism of ahād reports the rhetoric leads the author to say, “if the chain was authentic we would accept the testimony of one person (or a few) that Jesus was indeed crucified or that he was the pre-existent ‘son’ of God? Or how about the testimony of Paul that he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus?” (p.41). This is truly ridiculous as the author conveniently overlooks the simple issue of the reliability of the narrators in the first place and conflates apparent incongruity between the Qur’an and Hadith, with the Judaeo-Christian beliefs that are plainly refuted in the Qur’an. The absurdity of this line of reasoning reaches the ultimate level when the author goes on to refer to St. Paul as “Tābi’” (p.42) in attempting to fabricate brownie points against hadiths. It is however, interesting to consider how this rhetoric originally aimed at ahād reports focuses on the tabi’un

One of the claims often repeated in the book is about Abu Huraira not being a faqīh (pp.56, 187-188). To this end he uses an anecdote mentioned by Al-Sarakhsi and ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari about Ibn ‘Abbas’s comment regarding Abu Huraira’s narration on performing ablution (wudu’) for carrying a dead person(p.56). The anecdote is reported without any isnād in the said works. The issue is similar to the better known anecdote in which Ibn ‘Abbas raises a similar question regarding Abu Huraira’s narration on performing ablution for taking something cooked on fire. Just as the ruling for performing ablution, and for taking something cooked on fire is explained by the interpretive device of tansikh (abrogation), which is supported by a narration of Abu Huraira himself (Abu Yusuf’s Kitāb Al-Athār, Hadith 41), this ruling can also be specific in some ways or considered to be abrogated, if verified for its authenticity in the first place. There is proof that Ibn ‘Abbas asked Abu Huraira to give a legal verdict on the more complex subject of divorce, (Muwatta Mālik, Hadith 2110, Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Hadith 4478). ‘Abdul Majīd Al-Turkamani has addressed this issue in his work, Dirāsat fi ‘Ulum Al-Hadith ‘ala Manhaj Al-Hanafiyya p.236-241, and has given names of Hanafi scholars who have categorically mentioned that Abu Huraira was indeed a faqīh. ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari from whom the author quotes the above-mentioned anecdote himself writes just a few pages later, “We do not accept that Abu Huraira was not a faqīh. Indeed he was a faqīh.” (Kashf Al-Asrar, Vol.2, 559)

The author also claims about those known for the ability and qualities of narration, unlike those recognized for knowledge and the ability of giving rulings, “if their narration conflicts with analogy, then the analogy takes precedence due to necessity of independent reasoning,” and mentions Abu Huraira and Anas bin Malik as examples (p.54). He further writes, “When there is conflict between analogy and the narration of non-faqīh Sahabi, Imam Karkhi gives priority to the narration whereas Imam Eisaa ibn Abbaan gives priority to analogy and his position is the official stance (‘mu’tamad’)” (p.58). The citation for this claim is Nizamuddin Al-Laknawi’s “Fawatih Al-Rahamut”, whereas in reality the author of the cited work makes no claim for any “official stance” on the issue and merely describes what ‘Eisa bin Aban (and Abu Zaid Al-Dabusi) preferred. Al-Turkamani in his earlier mentioned work (pp.210-243) has treated the subject at length and shown that unconditional preference of narration over analogy is the opinion authentically narrated from Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad bin Al-Hasan Al-Shaibani and the majority of Hanafi scholars. Conditional preference of analogy over narration is a minority opinion. Naturally, the opinion of the founders of the school and the majority is the one that matters.

Inconsistencies or manifestations of ad hoc approach

Besides, the merits of the positions taken, the book is internally inconsistent as well. While the author first alleged that Hanafis “completely rejected” the hadith about two people engaged in a transaction and the choice to annul it (pp.10-11), later in the book he presents the same hadith as a case of “when the hadith has many meanings … The narrator acting on one of the meanings does not eliminate the possibility of other meanings being correct,” (pp.186-187).

At one place the author finds fault with the hadith; “If a woman marries without the permission of a representative, her marriage is not valid” for being “narrated from one lady Sahabiyah” (i.e. Aisha) and contradicting the principle of “‘Umum Al-Balwaa’” (p.37), but later the same is presented as an example of a case where “the hadith is accepted” (p.186).

Et Cetera Et Cetera

On p.116 the following statement regarding the enumerated eight “Types of Opposition” is translated in a weird and possibly misleading way.

The translation of this statement is given as, “In one narration Imam Shafi’i rejects all these categories due to their implicit disconnection and in a second narration he accepts them.” This translation is problematic; one can only wonder why there is an alteration in transposing the sequence of narrations, by placing the acceptance for connection second and the rejection due to disconnection first. Was it to highlight the alleged narration on Al-Shafi’i’s rejection of those categories?

Referencing is also sometimes faulty. A couple of examples from those cross examined include the citation simply “Abu Bakr Al-Rāzi Al-Jassās, “Al-Fusul fi Al-Usul”, Volume 2” without the publisher’s name or a page number (p.286), and for the hadith of Aisha “narrated by Tirmidhi” related to marriage (p.186) the reference is a report from Sunan Abu Dawud, from the chapters on purification.

The index is equally as poor. There is no entry for certain proper names such as, Abu Yusuf, Al-Tahawi and Ikrama. Against the entry “Khawarij” five pages (139, 2014, 205, 206, 243) are mentioned and you do not find anything about Khawarij on these pages.

Finally, while the whole book is about the rant on ‘delivering’ contemporary Hanafis from the ‘Shafi’i Musatalah’, it is ironic that for a qualification of a condition of tawatur (p.25, note 40), the only citation presented is Nuzhat Al-Nazr of “Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani Al-Shafi” (p.270).

Summary

The only thing worthwhile in the book is its binding and the quality of paper used. Content wise it is poor, erroneous, misleading and even carelessly worked out. Far from being a good source to know the Hanafi positions on issues in Hadith sciences, the book altogether misrepresents the school and tries to put a traditionalist garb over the heretical agendas of hadith rejecters. No matter how much the author may have attempted to preempt the expected reaction about his book by creating an air of innocence around him, the fact remains it is clearly an attempt to bereave the Ummah of confidence in hadith and implicating the bastions of Hadith and Sunnah in this sinister game.

It has been said (qeel) that a Jew did magic on the Prophet (ﷺ), so this (surah) was revealed.

Abu Bakr Al-Asamm said: They have mentioned regarding this surah some hadith which is impossible. Therefore, I rejected it.

Al-Faqih [Al-Maturidi] said: But to us in what has been said (lakin ‘indana fi ma qeel) about the Messenger of Allah getting affected by magic, there are two ways in proving his prophethood.

First: that he learnt through revelation that magic was performed on him, though it was done secretly. And no one can learn about the Unseen (ghaib) except through revelation.

Second: by the way of removing the effect of magic through the recitation of Qur’an as it happened with the staff of Musa, ‘alaihi al-salam …

Al-Maturidi first refers to the hadith reports about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ). He then mentions Abu Bakr al-Asamm, the Mu’tazalite, who rejected hadith reports on this issue. He then responds and mentions his own view in that, it is a two-fold evidence for affirming and proving the Prophet’s truthfulness.

Therefore, regardless of the implications of the word “qeel” in mentioning the hadith about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ), it is evident that Al-Maturidi took exception to Al-Asamm’s rejection of the reports on the subject and went on to claim that the reports actually stand among the proofs of Prophethood.

Moreover, careful study of Al-Maturidi’s usage of the word “qeel” in his tafsir, proves that he did not use it to imply weakness of what he related in this way. He used it along with other similar words in the linguistic sense for different reported opinions before forming an opinion about them, and preferring one over the other as mentioned by Dr. Majdi Basallum in introduction to his edition of Al-Maturidi’s tafsir Ta’wilāt Ahlul Sunnah (Vol.1, 331). In the case at hand we see, that he finds no issue with the reports about the incident and rather counts them among the Proofs of Prophethood.

A note on Sulaiman Ahmad: He is only a student at best, and no where near the level of even a basic scholar. This is shown by his many blunders on basic matters in his various “fatwas” of fitna, as well as not knowing basic Hanafi usool, as well as his not understanding basic Hanafi terms. One of his former teachers (whom I keep as anonymous, since Atabek and his cult are fanatical Muslims that persecute and attack all of their opponents) considered him a “Jahil aami” with very poor knowledge of Arabic.

HARAAM BANK RIBA-LOANS AND THE HARAAM VIEW OF A SCIOLIST JAAHIL ‘SHAYKH’

INTRODUCTION

ATABEK SHUKUROV – ANOTHER U.K. JAAHIL, MUDHIL

In this era in close proximity to Qiyaamah, the world abounds with juhala and mudhilleen who pose as ‘authorities’ of the Shariah when in reality they grope and grovel in a quagmire of jahaalat. One such jaahil whose articles and stupid ‘fatwas’ are loaded with hogwash and nafsaani flotsam, is one Atabek Shukurov who has set himself up as an ‘authority’ of the Hanafi Math-hab whilst he dwells in a mire of jahl-e-murakkab.

Some of the flotsam ‘fatwas’ of this mudhil have crossed our path. Insha-Allah, we shall respond in detail in refutation of the copro-jahl with which his ‘fatwas’ of jahl are besmirched. It is mentioned in the Hadith that in times close to the approach of Qiyaamah, there will be shayaateen masquerading as human beings. They will deliver lectures, give fatwas and even recite the Qur’aan Majeed right inside the Musjid to lure and ensnare Muslims into their den of Imaani destruction. It appears that this Atabek character is one of those shayaateeni mudhilleen predicted in the Ahaadith.

This jaahil has written considerable drivel and hogwash in his stupid ‘fatwas’ on the issues of mortgages, homosexuality, smoking, etc. If Allah Ta’ala grants us the taufeeq, we shall demolish all the rubbish which this latest mudhil has excreted in his ‘fatwas’ which are the coproeffects of his jahl-e-murakkab.

In brief, we apprize the Ummah of the Haqq of the masaa’il which the mudhil coprocreep has convoluted and corrupted with his jahaalat which maybe deliberate and designed to further the scheme of Iblees in his mission of undermining and destroying Islam.

Know and understand well that all bank loans are interest-bearing. There is no type of loan given by a bank which is free of interest/riba. Atabek’s laborious and abortive attempt to ‘prove’ that bank interest is not Riba, is the effect of shaitaan having gripped his brains. Just as the mushrikeen of Arabia would say: “Trade is like Riba.”, hence it should be halaal, so too, does this agent of Iblees, Atabek say: “Bank interest is tawkeel.” This agent of shaitaan is at war with Allah and His Rasool, for the Qur’aan Majeed issues the following ultimatum of war:

“…If you do not desist (from devouring riba), then take notice of WAR from Allah and His Rasool.”

By no stretch of Imaani logic and Fiqhi logic can such clear-cut Riba charged by banks, ever be interpreted to mean anything other than Riba. Therefore, all bank loans are haraam. All such loans are encumbered with interest which no brand of interpretation can ever cancel.

Homosexuality is HARAAM. Homosexuals are worse than adulterers. Islam prescribes the severest punishment for homosexuals. If homosexuality is proved in the court of the Qaadhi, even the death penalty may be applicable. Atabek’s article is designed to placate the palates of his western kuffaar masters whom he is bootlicking.

Smoking breaks the fast. The arguments in negation of this mas’alah are baseless. Insha-Allah, a detailed response shall be forthcoming for the khuraafaat (drivel and trash) which Atabek has expectorated. The present article is a refutation of his stupid mortgage expectoration, rather nafsaani excretion.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.”

This Atabek is from amongst the Mudhilleen mentioned in this Hadith.

MORTGAGE

A SYNOPSIS FOR LAYMEN

A sciolist deviate, one Atabek Shukurov, in the U.K., posing as a Hanafi authority, has issued a corrupt, baatil, stupid ‘fatwa’ proclaiming Riba to be halaal. Camouflaging Riba with the epithet of ‘mortgage’, and employing skulduggery and chicanery to convolute Qardh into Tawkeel, the deviate jaahil has confirmed that he is among the signs of Qiyaamah predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had mentioned that in times in proximity to Qiyaamah, people from his Ummah will make liquor halaal by the trick of nomenclature. Fanciful names will be coined for the intoxicating drinks to render it halaal.

This Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has the status of a principle, and it is not restricted to liquor. It applies to all haraam practices and acts which are legalized and halaalized by means of fanciful names and fallacious interpretations. Thus, Tasweer (pictures of animate objects) is opined to be halaal by describing it as reflection, digital picture, television picture, video, etc.

Riba is halaalized by dubbing it profit, dividend and now ‘mortgage’ by this jaahil deviate whose jahaalat conspicuously renders him person’ non-grata in terms of the Shariah. This is the era in which the juhhaal such as Atabek, preponderate. There are numerous such ‘shaykhs’ of deviation prowling around the world executing the dictates of Iblees and undermining the Divine Shariah.

Atabek, setting himself up as a Hanafi authority, has stupidly and abortively attempted to convince Muslims that in the acquisition of a bank loan, the evil of Riba is not involved. Bank loans according to this Ghabi ‘shaykh’ are not interest-bearing. His jahl is indeed shockingly lamentable. He truly belongs to that category of jaahil ‘scholars’ who gather firewood in the dark on an intensely dark night without knowing if his hands are falling on excreta or a poisonous snake. Such a jaahil ‘scholar’ is described as Haatibul Lail (one who gathers firewood in the darkness of the night).

Before we commence with our detailed refutation of his stupid arguments which are the products of jahl murakkab (compound ignorance), we present this brief synopsis for the guidance of laymen who may not fully understand the academic nature of the refutation, or who may find technical details quite boring. This synopsis is for the guidance of laymen, and to prevent them from indulgence in one of the worst sins – the sin of Riba which in one Hadith is described as a conglomeration of more than 70 major sins, the lightest of which is like committing adultery with one’s own mother.

Despite the extreme danger of Riba and Allah’s abhorrence for it, and Allah’s declaration of war against those who indulge in Riba, this deviate jaahil deemed it appropriate to recklessly issue a licence for indulging in Riba thereby embarking on a satanic mission of ruining the Imaan of the ignorant and unwary.

Understand well that the transaction between the bank and a man who purchases a property with the money advanced by the bank is a pure interest-bearing loan. The fanciful and stupid mental gymnastics in which the Ghabi ‘scholar’ engages in his stupid attempt to halaalize Riba by dubbing the transaction ‘Tawkeel’, is unadulterated haraam skulduggery. No one should be fooled and befuddled by the utterly fallacious ‘fatwa’ of Mr. Atabek Shukurov who has clearly demonstrated that as far as the Shariah is concerned, he is a jaahil and a mudhil.

No amount of skulduggery employing Fiqhi technicalities will convince a sincere Muslim seeking guidance on this issue, that the money which a bank advances for purchasing a property is a not a loan on which interest has to be paid. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.” Every Muslim has sufficient intelligence to understand what in reality a bank loan is. The stupidity of Shukurov’s arguments proffered in negation of bank-riba defies incredulity and is an insult to intelligence.

In both terminology and factual meaning, a bank loan is an interest-bearing loan, and no amount of fanciful, technically sounding arguments and skulduggery will appeal to the pure and simple intelligence of a mind which has not lost its equilibrium in the wake of the pursuit of worldly and nafsaani objectives.

For practical purposes, Muslims should understand that bank loans are Riba-bearing transactions, the reality of which is not changed by dubbing such loans ‘mortgages’ and the gimmick of ‘tawkeel’. Liquor remains haraam regardless of the plethora of new names coined for the intoxicant. Pictures of animate objects remain haraam regardless of the new epithets by which pictures are called. Riba remains haraam regardless of the nomenclature fabricated by the commission of skulduggery by stupid ‘scholars’ and paper ‘mujtahids’ of this era in close proximity to Qiyaamah.

It is the reality of the transaction which is the determinant. BANK LOANS ARE HARAAM.

NOMENCLATURE DECEPTION

In the introduction of his garbage permissibility of Riba ‘fatwa’, which he abortively seeks to halaalize with the ‘mortgage’ designation, and the convoluted ‘tawkeel’ fabrication, the deviate ‘scholar’, Atabek, says to Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Sahib:

“The issue of purchasing a property with the support of a bank is well-known to be controversial amongst Muslim academics. It is likewise well known that most of the scholars consider certain types of purchasing a house through the banks to be prohibited.”

In fact all the Ulama – genuine Ulama – are unanimous in the fatwa of prohibition. Buying property via the conventional capitalist riba banks is haraam. There is no Aalim who would dare to say that riba is halaal, and a bank loan with the encumbrance of interest is halaal. Only deviates of Atabek’s ilk – the modernist, suit and tie ‘scholars’ of ghabaawah proffer the view of permissibility. But their stupid ‘fatwas’ are devoid of Shar’i substance. Even the products offered by the so-called ‘islamic’ banks are contaminated with riba, and most of their deals are faasid and baatil.

In describing the method of the bank’s operation when granting a loan, the deviate ‘scholar’ acknowledges that the prospective buyer of a property “borrows” money from the bank, and the bank “lends” him the money, then with this money borrowed from the bank, he buys the property, and thereafter the borrower has to repay the bank in instalments “with some profit”. He describes the gain acquired by the bank for the loan given as “profit”, thus bringing himself fully within the purview of the Hadith which predicts the halaalization of haraam by means of the ruse of nomenclature. Describing pork as ‘mutton’ does not halaalize the flesh of swine. Similarly, describing interest as ‘profit’ does not render it halaal.

According to the Shariah, a loan cannot acquire ‘profit’. The hallucinated ‘profit’ is pure riba. Despite accepting that the essential constituents of the transaction are borrowing and lending, the jaahil says that the gain is ‘profit’. Making a mockery of his own intelligence, he avers: “The interest that the bank will be charging the buyer depends on what they have agreed.” He has no alternative but to call a spade a spade, nevertheless, he believes that this haraam interest is halaal.

Shooting himself in the leg, he is constrained to acknowledge:

“As times passes the payable amount increases with it. For example, if the buyer borrows one thousand pounds and pays it back within the first year, then he has to pay one thousand and thirty pounds. But as time passes the debt increases, because the interest is not based on the initial amount that is borrowed but rather on the amount which is due each year. This necessitates the payable amount to differ based on the time of the payment.”

The reality of Riba is conceded in this statement by the deviate, yet he stupidly maintains that a bank loan on which interest is paid is not a riba bearing loan.

THE PRINCIPLE OF IBAAHAH(Permissibility)

In his attempt to legalize riba, the deviate resorts to ludicrous mental gymnastics, juggling with the concept of Wikaalat (Agency) and other principles which have no bearing whatsoever on the issue of bank loans. Thus, he says:

“The initial status of all kinds of transactions is that they are permissible. One of the well-known principles of the Hanafi School is that everything beside these three is permissible by default: 1. Bloodshed 2. Sexual acts 3. Rituals of worship……….Based on this, we say, everything is permissible unless it is proven to not permissible.”

Regarding the bank loan issue, the introduction of the aforementioned principle is indeed moronic.

(1) There is no relationship between a bank loan encumbered with interest and this principle. The fundamental constituents of borrowing, lending and paying interest, determine the Shariah’s ruling. A clearcut ruling of prohibition of interest cannot be submitted to the contentious principle formulated by opinion.

The introduction of this principle, totally unrelated to the issue of bank interest loans, is a silly exercise in futility with which the deviate modernist attempts to obfuscate the conspicuous clarity of the prohibition of bank interest. However, since he has moronically touched on this principle, it will be appropriate to discuss and refute its applicability to the issue under discussion.

Atabek has abortively attempted to convey the idea that the principle: “The initial (hukm) regarding things is ibaahah (permissibility).”, is the standard and accepted rule of the Hanafi Math-hab. This postulation is incorrect. This is the principle of the Jamhur Shaafi’ Fuqaha, not of the Hanafi Fuqaha. The following elucidation is presented in Al-Ashbaah wan Nathaair ala Math-habi Abi Hanifah:

“Is the Asl (the initial hukm) regarding things Ibaahah (permissibility) until such time that there is a daleel (evidence) to indicate the negation of ibaahah – and this is the Math-hab of Ash-Shaafi’ (rahmatullah alah) – or is it (i.e. the Asl) Tahreem (Prohibition) until there is daleel for Ibaahah? The Shaafi’iyyah attribute this (i.e. the Asl is Tahreem) to Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh).

In Sharhul Minaar it appears: Things are initially on Ibaahah according to some Hanafiyyah. Among them is Al-Karkhi. Some of the As-haab of Hadith say: The Asl in this is Al-Hazr (prohibition).

Our As-haab (the Hanafi Fuqaha) say: The Asl in it is Tawaqquf (Non-Committal), meaning that a hukm (of the Shariah) is necessary for it, but we are not aware of it by means of intelligence.

In Hidaayah appears: The Asl is Ibaahah.”

In Al-Ash-Baah wan Nathaair (Shaafi’), the Shaafi’ position is stated as follows:

“The Asl in things is Ibaahah until there is daleel to indicate Tahreem (Prohibition). This is our (i.e. Shaafi) Math-hab. According to Abu Hanifah the Asl is Tahreem (Prohibition) until there is a daleel to establish Ibaahah (Permissibility).”
In this sphere there are three principles: Ibaahah (Permissibility), Tahreem (Prohibition) and Tawaqquf (Non-Committal). Regarding these principles formulated on the basis of opinion, there is considerable difference of opinion. These principles are not cast in rock. They are not Mansoos on the basis of Wahi nor in terms of the Hadith. Fuqaha of the same Math-hab subscribe to differing opinions. Among the Hanafis are those who hold the opinion of Ibaahah while others of the Hanafi Math-hab subscribe to the Tahreem view, and similar is the difference in the other Math-habs.

Furthermore, these principles are overridden by Shar’i Daleel. They will operate only in rare cases of absolute absence of Shar’i daleel. There is also no strict adherence to these principles among the Fuqaha. Consider an animal such as the giraffe (zaraafah). The Qur’aan and Ahaadith are silent regarding the permissibility or prohibition of giraffe. Those who subscribe to the Ibaahah principle opine that its meat is halaal while those holding the view of Tahreem say that it is haraam. Since there is no Shar’i basis for proclaiming giraffe haraam, the holders of the Ibaahah view say that it is halaal. On the other hand, Imaam Nawawi and Shiraazi who are Shaafi’ authorities, proclaim giraffe haraam despite the Shaafi’ principle of Ibaahah.

The Hanafis again, despite their principle of Tahreem, proclaim giraffe to be halaal since there is no Shar’i daleel for saying that it is haraam. From this, it is clear that the actual determinant is Shar’i daleel. If there is daleel for Ibaahah, the ruling will be permissibility. On the contrary, if there is daleel for Tahreem, the fatwa will be on hurmat. Also according to Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (Rahmatullah alayh), giraffe is haraam despite the Asl of Ibaahah.

Although the principle of the Shaafi’ Math-hab is Ibaahah, the majority of the Shaafi’ Fuqaha have refrained from issuing a ruling regarding the giraffe. Neither do they say that it is halaal nor haraam despite their Ibaahah principle. (Al-Ashbaah wan Nathaair – Shaafi’). In Al-Ashbaah wan Nathaair of Imaam Jalaaluddin Suyuti, it is mentioned:

“The majority of the As-haab (Shaafi’ Fuqaha) have not entertained this issue (of the giraffe) at all whatsoever, neither permissibility nor prohibition. Fataawa Qaadhi Husain and Imaam Ghazaali have explicitly said that it is halaal……………

Ash-Shaikh has categorically stated in At-Tanbeeh that it is haraam. In Sharhul Muhazzab, Consensus (Ittifaaq) is narrated on this. And so too has Abul Khattaab of the Hanaabilah said. No one from the Maalikiyyah and the Hanafiyyah has mentioned it (the giraffe), nevertheless, their principles dictate it being halaal.”

“Shaikh Abu Is-haaq has categorically stated in At-Tanbeeh that the giraffe is haraam……..In Sharhul Muhazzab, Nawawi has narrated Ittifaaq (Consensus) on the giraffe’s prohibition.”

In the Kitaab, Asnal Mataalib fi Sharhi Raudhit Taalib it appears as follows:

“He says in Al-Majmoo’ that verily, the giraffe is haraam without any difference of opinion.” This is despite the Ibaahah principle on the basis of which other Shaafi’ Fuqaha proclaim it to be halaal. There exists considerable difference and argument and conflicting dalaa-il in the Shaafi’ Math-hab regarding the permissibility or prohibition of the giraffe despite the Jamhur’s principle of Ibaahah.

On the other hand, despite the Tahreem principle of the Ahnaaf, the Hanafi Fuqaha say that giraffe is halaal. It should be quite evident that the determinant is Shar’i daleel.

Consider the example of the whale. In terms of the Shaafi’ principle, Ibaahah applies, and not only to the whale, but to all sea animals. However, according to the Ahnaaf, whale and all sea animals are haraam despite a semblance of Shar’i daleel. Although a Hadith leads to the possible conclusion of the sea animal being a whale, the Hanafi Fuqaha do not accept that the sea animal described in the Hadith was a whale, hence they maintain its prohibition. They have their own Shar’i dalaa-il for the hurmat of the whale and all sea animals. Thus, the emphasis is on Tahreem by the Ahnaaf.

What is clear from the considerable difference, conflict and ambiguity in these principles is that the determinant is Shar’i Daleel which restricts and overrides the principles.

(2) The claim that this principle applies to trade transactions is erroneous. It applies to existing aspects of creation on which the Shariah is silent, e.g. animals, plants, a water channel whose ownership is unknown, i.e. whether it is private property or not, and any existent for which there is no ruling provided by the Qur’aan or Hadith.

It is stupid and baatil to apply the principle of Ibaahah to a transaction or even a tangible substance merely because their names cannot be found in the Nusoos. It may not be said that vodka and whisky are halaal on the basis of the principle of Ibaahah. It may not be said that pudding is halaal on the basis of this principle of permissibility simply because the name, ‘pudding’ does not exist in the Qur’aan or Hadith. The imperative need will be to examine and establish what exactly are the ingredients and constituents of these substances. If the ingredients are haraam or the effect of the halaal ingredients is haraam such as intoxication, then the Shar’i daleel for Tahreem is confirmed.

Similarly, mortgages cannot be said to be halaal on the basis of the Ibaahah principle simply because this term is new and cannot be located in the Nusoos. The incumbent need is to examine and establish what mortgages are all about. The introduction of the Ibaahah principle in this regard demonstrates the jahaalat of Atabek. The simple issue in this regard is that a bank loan is encumbered with interest/riba, hence it is Haraam. There is absolutely no need for the invocation of any one of the three principles to determine the Shariah’s verdict on bank-interest. It is glaringly Riba. Only brains welded by stupidity and aggravated by western liberalism and a bootlicking attitude, understand otherwise.

The mudhaarabah transaction of the so-called islamic banks cannot be proclaimed halaal on the basis of the Ibaahah principle, and simply because it has an Islamic designation. The need is to examine the constituents of the contract to establish the Shar’i ruling.

A plant, the properties of which are unknown – whether beneficial or poisonous – shall not be proclaimed halaal or haraam simply on the basis of the principles of Ibaahah and Tahreem. The demand is for establishing the ruling on the basis of Shar’i daleel. If examination confirms that the plant is poisonous, then obviously the verdict will be Tahreem. If it is not harmful or poisonous, the ruling will be Ibaahah.

It will indeed be a rarity for the total absence of Shar’i daleel to act as the determinant. In such rare cases, Tawaqquf will apply, thus rendering the issue to the Mushtabah realm. As far as bank loans are concerned, there is absolutely no ambiguity in their nature. A bank loan is pronounced haraam by the categorical Nusoos of the Qur’aan and Hadith. Only a stupid deviate having no affinity with the Shariah will muster the stupid audacity to invoke the principle of Ibaahah for the determination of a ruling for a bank loan which is encumbered with riba. The principle may not be used in conflict with a mansoos alayh law.

The unnecessary and stupid introduction of the Ibaahah principle which is totally unrelated to bank interest/riba, has constrained this digression.

THE ISSUE OF MORTGAGE

Exhibiting his skulduggery, the deviate Atabek says:

“Coming back to the issue of mortgage, I say it cannot be Riba, because the bank does not ‘lend’ the money as per Shariah definition of lending or debt. That is because the buyer is not free to do with the money whatever he wants. The bank won’t allow him to do anything with it except buying that exact house which he has agreed with the bank to buy. This is not called ’debt’”

Every person in his sane senses will understand that this is a lot of hogwash and bunkum. By what stretch of logic – kuffaar or Islamic – does this man interpret a straightforward, simple loan to be some other transaction other than debt? He has absolutely not even a single valid Shar’i argument to bolster his rubbish view. The only stupid and absurd ‘daleel’ he proffers is that the bank advances the loan for a specific purpose, namely, to purchase only a property and nothing else. There is no authority in the Shariah for bolstering this stupid averment. It is absurd both in terms of the Shariah and even kuffaar economical laws. In fact, this stupidity is repulsive to intelligence.

The maximum that could be said about the bank’s stipulated condition is that it is a faasid/baatilshart – a baseless and invalid condition. It is nothing more than this. Whilst we do not accept that this specific condition in the context is unlawful, for the purpose of this discussion we shall assume that the stipulation by the bank which is not Islamically permissible, is invalid. Now on what Shar’i authority does the deviate Atabek base his stupid conclusion of the reality of the loan being cancelled in consequence of the invalid condition? There is absolutely no authority for his stupid opinion sucked out from his nafs and constrained by modernity.

Just as in the case of Hibah (Gift), a faasid shart automatically falling away leaving the Hibah valid and lawful, so too is it with Qardh (loan given). If a man making a gift, says: “This car is a gift for you on condition that you do not sell it.”, the gift is valid whilst the faasid condition falls away. Similarly, if a loan is given with the condition that the borrower should use it for only a specific purpose, then whilst the condition is invalid, the loan/debt remains valid Qardh. The Fuqaha state in this regard:

“Stipulation of time (for repayment) is not binding in Qardh regardless of it being stipulated as a condition in the transaction or delayed to after the transaction.”

The reason for this is: “Verily, Qardh is an act of Tabarru’ (kindness, favour).”

Qardh belongs to the class of transactions which are Tabarru’ (Kindness/Favour). These transactions remain valid despite the faasid conditions which automatically fall away, leaving the transaction valid.

If the haraam condition of interest is stipulated, the capital sum only is repayable. The haraam stipulation does not cancel the reality of Qardh. The loan remains a loan.

The Rukn of Qardh is Ijaab and Qubool according to Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Muhammad. According to Imaam Abu Yusuf it is only Ijaab. The existence of the arkaan suffices for the validity of Qardh which remains unaffected by the addition of a faasid shart. Acts of Tabarru’ such as Hibah (gifts), Sadqah (charity), Nikah (marriage), Khula’, and the like are all acts of Tabarru’ which are not invalidated by faasid shuroot. Qardh is in the same category.

Even a Mudhaarabah contract encumbered by a baatil shart, remains valid whilst the invalid condition falls away. Imaam Muhammad said: “If a man gives a thousand dirhams for conducting Mudhaarabah on a 50-50 basis profit-sharing with the condition that the Mudhaarib gives his land to the Rabbul Maal to enable him to cultivate it for a year or his house so that he (the Rabbul Maal) may live in it for a year, then the shart is baatil, and the Mudhaarabah is valid.”

Even the contract of Shirkat (Partnership), like Mudhaarabah, is not a Tabarru’ transaction. Nevertheless, it remains valid despite the faasid shart which automatically falls away. Only if the conditions extricate the mudhaarabah and shirkat transactions from their reality by negating the fundamental constituent which is partnership in the profit, will it be said that the contract is no longer what it was intended to be, hence invalid.

It should now be quite obvious that the deviate jaahil has absolutely not a single viable argument for substantiating his stupid and fallacious postulate of a bank loan not being a loan (Qardh). There is neither Shar’i basis for his baatil claim, nor a logical basis.

The coprocreep further avers:

“Thus, debt is the borrowing of an item from someone for a certain period of time under the condition of returning it back. The ownership of the borrowed item will be transferred to the person who is taking it, which necessitates that he is free to do with it as he wants — the person who is lending it out has no right to dictate what he can and cannot do with it.”

This averment is defective and in no way whatsoever alters the reality of Qardh. As explained above, the loan remains a loan regardless of the stipulation of any faasid condition by the lender, the bank in this case. In the above statement, the deviate has confused two different types of debt, namely, Qardh and Dain. Qardh is a loan while Dain is a debt incurred by a trade transaction such as buying an item on credit. In Dain it is incumbent to stipulate the time of payment. In Qardh, no time factor applies. It is not permissible to fix the time of repayment. The condition of a time frame is baatil in relation to Qardh. The creditor of the loan has the right to demand repayment at any time regardless of whether a time was fixed for repayment. The “certain period” mentioned by Atabek is baseless and does not apply to Qardh. He needs to re-visit, in fact re-study, the Kutub of Fiqh. It is clear that he is ignorant of many Fiqhi issues, hence he blurts out flotsam and jetsam thereby advertising his jahl. Yet, this copro-jaahil, shamelessly insults the very senior Ulama of Deoband. Only a fool is ignorant of the Stars of Uloom and Taqwa produced by Darul Uloom Deoband in its heyday.

The Hanafi Fuqaha state:

“Verily, Qardh is like Aariyah (an item given on loan). Stipulation of a time (for returning the item) is not incumbent in loaned items.”

This also debunks the copro-jaahil’s assertion, viz. “for a certain period of time”. The stipulation of time of repayment applies to the debt called Dain, not to Qardh.

While the lender has the right to utilize the loaned money as he deems appropriate, the stipulation that he may buy only a property with the loan in no way whatsoever cancels the reality and nature of the loan. It remains Qardh. The Kutub of Fiqh are explicit in this regard. But the mudhil is ignorant of the Kutub although he has set himself up as an expert of the Hanafi Math-hab and as a mujtahid. The fellow is a jaahil paper ‘mujtahid’ basking in his own jahl-e-murakkab. No one has claimed that the lender has the right to dictate conditions. The issue is that the loan remains Qardh despite the dictation of the lender. As far as large loans are concerned, it shall be shown later that there is a need for the bank to dictate and advance the loan for only a specific purpose.

Since the Qardh remains Qardh despite the stipulation of a faasid shart, the copro-jaahil has absolutely no basis for his copro-interpretation in negation of the reality of the loan advanced by a bank – a loan encumbered with Riba.

The jaahil makes a big issue out of an insignificant factor in the bank-loan. He maintains that the borrower here is not free to use the money as he wishes. Even if this be assumed to be correct, it does not negate the reality of the loan which remains Qardh in terms of the Shariah. However, the factual position is that the lender is free to utilize the money for the specific purpose for which he has requested the loan. He approaches the bank with his stated wish to purchase a certain property. The bank does not compel him to buy the property of its own choice. The lender himself selected the property and seeks a loan to pay the price. Thus, the bank advances him the loan to purchase what he had selected of his own free will.

If a lender advances a loan on condition that the money may not be used for gambling, squandering on haraam and the like, the reality of the Qardh is not negated. Similarly, to safeguard its interests, the bank will agree to the loan only if repayment is assured. Thus, if the borrower seeks a loan of a million pounds for a property whose value is 100,000 pounds, the bank is entitled to refuse, and to stipulate that only such a property be purchased which guarantees the loan. In safeguarding its interests, the bank is not dictating to the lender what he has to do with the money. On the contrary, it is the borrower who approaches the bank for a loan to purchase an item of his own choice, not of the bank’s choice. We have mentioned this fact merely to highlight the stupidity of the jaahil’s averment. But in reality this issue has no bearing on the validity of the loan. It remains a valid loan regardless of the hallucinated dictation by the bank.

THE TAWKEEL HALLUCINATION

Like a drowning man clutching at straws, the faasiq deviate Atabek desperately proffers the hallucination of a bank interest bearing loan being a contract of Tawkeel (Agency). Not even a layman will be fooled by such audacious stupidity which asserts that pork is transformed into mutton by mere imagination. In presenting his ludicrous postulate, he says:

“The different topics that I have mentioned necessitate that a mortgage is Tawkeel and not a debt because the scenario of a mortgage happens as follows

Customer expresses his desire to buy a house to the bank.

Bank follows its procedure, then it approves the buyer to buy the house on behalf of the bank with the money which he gets from the bank by cash payment.

Then he buys the house from the bank by instalments over certain period of time. After that he pays back that money during that time period.

This is the practical and technical explanation of a mortgage. This is because the meaning is the most important thing in transactions and not what one says (i.e. it is about what you do and not what you say.”

Let us examine this hogwash. The ‘different topics’ mentioned by the copro-jaahil in no way whatever necessitate that a bank interest-bearing loan is transformed into Tawkeel or in meaning it is Tawkeel. In his disgorgement of ‘different topics’, he has merely tried to explain the meanings of Qardh and Tawkeel. After explaining the technical Fiqhi meanings of these two transactions, he arbitrarily and stupidly without Shar’i basis concludes that a riba loan advanced by the bank is Tawkeel. His postulation is devoid of logical content and bereft of Shar’i substance. Furthermore, his corrupt theorizing is in conflict with reality.

The client, i.e. the borrower, does not approach the bank to purchase a house from the bank, for the bank does not own a house for sale nor is the bank in the business of buying and selling properties. Its profession is to lend money to borrowers on interest. Only a moron whose brains have been convoluted by Iblees will contend otherwise. The client approaches the bank for a loan which the bank will advance only if he is creditworthy. The procedure which the bank will initiate to establish the credit worthiness of the borrower and the veracity and viability of his deal with the owner of the house who is the actual and the only seller, is reasonable and absolutely necessary. This procedure is totally unrelated to any facet of Tawkeel.

The deviate’s claim that the “bank appoints the buyer to buy the house on behalf of the bank”, is an absurd LIE. Neither practically nor technically nor logically is there any veracity in this baatil claim of Atabek. Furthermore, it is blatantly false to say that the bank gives the cash directly into the hands of the borrower. The reality is that by Iqtidhaaun Nass the borrower appoints the bank as his Wakeel to pay his debt owing to the owner of the house who is the true and the real seller who sells the property to the one who borrows the money from the bank. The bank does not purchase the property from the seller as the jaahil alleges. The bank merely makes payment on behalf of the borrower who is the true and the real buyer.

The Fuqaha state: The determinant is the actual meaning (the reality of the transaction), not the words (used to embellish a haraam transaction for rendering it halaal). Thus, if interest is described as a gift, dividend, profit, etc., it will not change the reality. It remains haraamriba. Whilst the copro-jaahil has made reference to this principle, he has abortively attempted to apply it in a convoluted manner to legalize a bank interest-bearing loan. The true meaning of the deal between a borrower and the bank is a riba loan. No amount of skulduggery can change this reality. Practically, technically and logically the bank is the lender and not the buyer nor is the borrower the Wakeel to buy a house for the bank. The reality is the opposite, namely, the bank is the borrower’s Wakeel to pay his debt with the money which he has borrowed from the bank.
Regarding the Tawkeel dimension, the Faasiq has placed the cart before the horse by contending that the borrower is the bank’s Wakeel bish-Shiraa’ (the agent to purchase on behalf of the bank). On the contrary, the bank is the Wakeel of the borrower. Prior to advancing the loan, and even before the house has been purchased, the bank stipulates its interest which will escalate annually. The purchase price is paid to the owner/seller with the borrowed money on which the bank fixes its rate of interest.

The plethora of faasid conditions with which all bank contracts and agreements are encumbered does not negate the reality of Qardh. It does not transform Qardh into Tawkeel. Only juhala possess sufficient stupidity to deny this reality and claim that the money borrowed from a bank is by way of Tawkeel.

Exhibiting his contumacious jahaalah, the copro-jaahil avers:

“Thus, when the bank says to the customer: ‘this is a debt we are lending you so that you can buy a house, and you have to pay it back to us’, this statement is incorrect literally but yet correct by Iqtidha. That is because the bank doesn’t give the ownership of the money to the customer – the bank will block you from using this money for anything besides buying that specific house – and that is not called lending but rather ‘tawkeel’“

Perhaps the baboons in the mountains will swallow this stupidity. Firstly, the Faasiq has misapplied the principle of Iqtidhaun Nass which is an implicit demand of a statement not stated verbally, but is implied. Saying that the bank’s categorical statement of the money advanced being a debt is literally incorrect, but by Iqtidha is correct, is an absurdity and self-contradiction which portray this man’s ignorance regarding the principles of Fiqh.

If the statement of the bank is CORRECT by way of Iqtidha, it logically follows that the bank’s version is correct because the demand of Iqtidha is valid and incumbent, and may not be cancelled by verbal/literal statements which may have a different meaning. The principle in transactions is that the determinant is the true and actual meaning, not the words. Both the words and meaning of the bank confirm the reality of Qardh. Whilst there is no need for Iqtidha to determine the reality of the bank’s interest-bearing loan, the Faasiq has shot himself in the leg by stupidly saying that the bank’s statement is correct by Iqtidha’. By making this claim he has entrapped himself into conceding that a bank’s loan is in fact Qardh regardless of his stupid howling to the contrary. Both principles, namely Ibaaratun Nass as well as Iqtidhaaun Nass (by his own admission) confirm the reality of the transaction to be Qardh. The reality precludes the idea of the bank having in actual fact purchased the house.

It has already been explained above that the stipulation of a faasid shart does not negate the reality of Qardh. We again reiterate that payment by the bank to the owner of the house who sells his property is not a faasid condition because the borrower approached the bank specifically for the purpose of acquiring a loan to pay for the house which he intends purchasing from Zaid. Thus, the bank acts as the borrower’s agent by effecting payment to the seller, viz. Zaid. It is utterly fallacious and stupid to claim that a loan is not a loan simply because the lender stipulates that the money may be used for only paying the creditor of the borrower. The bank pays the seller on the instruction of the borrower to whom the bank loans the money repayable with Riba.

Making another drivel claim, the Faasiq says:

“This is not any type of riba, because the bank does not give away the money to the customer.”

This is rubbish. The bank in reality does give the money to the borrower to use for the specific purpose for which he has approached the bank. It is the borrower who asks the bank to pay for the house which he will be buying from Zaid. Thus, the bank acts as the borrower’s Wakeel to effect payment on his behalf. This is the simple reality and nature of the transaction with the bank.

The claim that the borrower acts as the representative of the bank to buy a house for the bank and that he buys the house from the bank is a donkey claim. Perhaps donkeys may swallow this absurdity. A man of Fisq given to bootlicking and emulation of the western kuffaar lacks Fahm. His brains are encased in a western straitjacket, hence he conjectures stupid theories to halaalize riba. And, according to the Qur’aan only a man who has been driven to madness by the touch of shaitaan legalizes riba and claims it to be trade. The Faasiq illustrates his jahaalah in an answer to a critic where he says: “If I give you money and say to you: ‘It is a gift to your father, but you have to buy food and bring it to me by using this money.”, What is it? Is it a gift or maybe some type of ‘usury’ or also ‘dowry’? Owner of the money specifying one and only way of using it and excluding everything else is called “Tawkeel”. This answer confirms that this Faasiq copro-jaahil lacks knowledge of even basic masaa-il. He sets himself up as an authority of the Hanafi Math-hab, yet he is egregiously ignorant of the fact that in the example he has cited to silence his critic, the gift remains a gift (Hibah) despite the faasid condition which simply falls away. All transactions of Tabarru’ in terms of the Hanafi Math-hab remain valid whilst the corrupt conditions automatically fall away. On what authority does this jaahil claim that the Hibah has been transformed into Tawkeel by the faasid condition? He has absolutely no authority since he blurts out trash from his nafs. In his superficial exposition of Tawkeel, the Faasiq sciolist avers:

“The rukn of wikala is anything that means ‘offer and accept’ – even indirectly such as silence’. So the real important thing is to express that a person is appointing the second person as a representative.”

This explanation is in diametric conflict with the reality of the relationship between the bank lender and the borrower. There is not even the slightest hint of the bank appointing the borrower to be its representative to purchase a property on its behalf. Furthermore, the issue of being the bank’s wakeel to purchase a house for the bank is the furthest from the mind of the borrower. Thus, there is absolutely no expression by any of the parties which could be even remotely interpreted to mean the creation of a Wikaalat contract. The conclusion of the sciolist is plain skulduggery and fraud. There has to be an intention and an understanding, for that will be the reality and the determinant in trade and commerce transactions. But the entire contract between the bank and the buyer of the house, from beginning to end, pertains to borrowing, lending and paying interest.

TWO PRICES?

In this regard, the copro-jaahil says:

“As for the price not being fixed but differing based on the time of paying it back, as we said, it is permissible according to the two students of Abu Hanifah without any conditions. It is also permissible according to Abu Hanifa with the condition that I explained above (i.e. for the late payment he has to pay a ‘standard price’, and the ‘standard price’ is what is known by custom).”

His postulate is fallacious. For the validity of a sale, the price has to be incumbently fixed. An item may not be purchased without the price having been fixed at the session of the sale. Whilst a higher price is permissible if sold on credit, the essential condition for the validity of the sale is that the higher price must be fixed at the time of the sale. The price may not be left to fluctuate and differ in a future limbo as interest rates fluctuate and differ. The different two prices – a cash price and a credit price – must be stated without ambiguity at the time of contracting the deal, and one price has to be fixed. The price may not be left undetermined for future fluctuation.

The sciolist cites an example from Quduri without understanding the import of the mas’alah. Firstly. The mas’alah in Quduri does not remotely refer to riba. The bank’s transaction with the borrower has absolutely no relationship with the mas’alah mentioned in Quduri and which the copro-jaahil cites. Secondly, the mas’alah applies to a valid trade transaction while the bank’s transaction is a clear-cut act of lending money on interest, and no convoluted and stupid interpretation can alter this reality. Thirdly, the mas’alah in Quduri does not relate to an unspecified price or a price which is not fixed. In both cases the price is fixed.

Quduri does not mention the issue of two different prices as the copro-jaahil attempts to hoodwink laymen with his chicanery. He cites the mas’alah from page 103 of Quduri, but what he claims is not mentioned in the section dealing with AL-Muraabah and At-Tauliyah.

Imaam Quduri merely states that it is permissible for the buyer to increase the price and for the seller to increase the commodity and decrease the price. What relationship has this with the riba the bank charges? Each one of the parties is merely exercising his right. If for argument’s sake we assume the stupid postulate of the copro-jaahil to have any validity then in his example, the bank is not the ‘buyer’. On the contrary, it is the ‘seller’ of the house. Now the bank (the hallucinated seller) is mandatorily increasing the so-called ‘price’ (i.e. the riba) from year to year depending on the fluctuation in the rate of interest. Thus, the copro-jaahil has inverted the mas’alah of Quduri in his convoluted, stupid exercise of presenting the bank loan as a trade transaction.

In a valid sale transaction, the buyer has the right to increase the price at will. The seller has no right of increasing the price after finalization of the deal. Yes, he has the right to decrease or give a discount at his own wish and will without such decrease being stipulated in the contract and without such decrease being customary.

The Faasiq sciolist conveniently omits citing what Quduri says about Qardh, and this appears on the very same page from which he has cited the mas’alah regarding increasing and decreasing the price and the commodity by the buyer and the seller respectively. Quduri states:

“Every Dain which is due, if the creditor stipulates a time (for its payment), it becomes Mu-ajjal (i.e. it will only be due for payment on the stipulated date), except Qardh, for verily, fixing a time (for its payment) is not valid.”

We have earlier explained that Dain is a debt in a sale transaction while Qardh is a debt incurred by a loan.

Explaining the invalidity of fixing a time for payment of Qardh, the Fuqaha say:

“Verily, Ta’jeel (fixing a time) is not valid, i.e. it is not binding. Thus, if at the time of giving the loan, or thereafter, a known time is fixed, it will not be valid. The lender has the right to demand immediate payment because Qardh is Aariyah (giving a loan of an item) which is (an act of (Tabarru’ (kindness/favour), and Ta’jeel in Tabarru’ is not binding.” (Aini and Fathul Qadeer)

The sciolist may check the kutub to ascertain what he has omitted by his chicanery. The Qardh remains valid whilst the baatil condition automatically falls away.

The other example of paying the tailor one price if he stitches the garment ‘today’ or lesser sum if he prepares it for the next day, also has absolutely no relationship to the bank loan scenario. By itself it is a valid contract in which there is no ambiguity and no fluctuation of the service fee for stitching the garment. The amount is fixed at the time of the deal. The price does not fluctuate in a limbo of ambiguity, and it has no truck with bank interest. There is no ‘differing’ in the fee which is arranged and agreed during the transaction. The analogy posited by the sciolist jaahil is glaringly fallacious.

The sciolist Atabek has pivoted his baatil opinion on the fallacious basis of a bank‘s loan not being Qardh, and for its justification he arbitrarily and stupidly claims that the loan cannot be Qardh because the bank restricts its used for a specific purpose, namely, the purchase of a property. There is absolutely no authority in the Shariah for this ludicrous opinion. At most, it could be ventured that the stipulation is faasid. On the assumption that it is faasid, the reality of Qardh remains unchanged. The loan is valid. Only the condition falls away. Thus, there is no transformation of the Qardh into Tawkeel.

Neither is there a stupid metamorphosis nor is there a Tawkeel agreement isaalatan (initially), nor has any such contract subsequently come into being. From whichever angle the matter is examined, only a Riba Loan emerges. But like the mushrikeen of Arabia, this Atabek sciolist expectorates: “Riba is like trade”. Only he camouflages this opinion of the mushrikeen by saying “A bank loan (with Riba) is Tawkeel.” Only a spiritually blind heart has the raw and kufr audacity of proclaiming an interestbearing bank loan to be halaal, dubbing it Tawkeel by nafsaani hallucination. May Allah Ta’ala save us from corruption of the heart caused by Rijs divinely cast on the brains, as the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“And, He (Allah) casts Rijs (FILTH) on those who lack Aql.” (those who fail to understand that the sun shines during the day time).

According to the U.K. Zindeeq, Faasiq, deviate Atabek Shukurov, who has set himself up as an ‘authority’ of the Hanafi Math-hab, smoking tobacco and using an inhaler do not invalidate the fast. This jaahil has disgorged some absolutely spurious and stupid arguments to bolster his corrupt view which is in diametric conflict with the Fatwa of all Four Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah.

The Fuqaha of all Four Math-habs have unanimously ruled that smoking breaks the fast. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, intentionally smoking during Ramadhaan necessitates the obligations of Qadha as well as the 60 day Kaffaarah. Seeking to overturn the Ijma’ of the Four Math-habs, this modernist Zindeeq exhibits his jahaalat which confirms that he is ignorant of the Shar’i concept of Saum. He does not know even the proper meaning of Fasting.

His article of jahl portraying his jahl-e-murakkab (compound ignorance), is bereft of even a shred of Shar’i evidence for his haraam view. He has miserably failed to cite even a single text from any of the Fuqaha of any of the Math-habs to bolster his haraam fallacy structured on the basis of corrupt personal opinion. Fasting is an injunction of the Shariah.

Fasting has been ordained for Muslims since the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Its definition cannot be re-interpreted on the basis of the logic of a copro-jaahil whose brains are operating within the constriction of the straightjacket of western modernity. In his article he has presented absolutely no Shar’i daleel for his haraam view. He abortively attempts to prove his baseless view in terms of analogies which are fallacious. His fallacies shall, Insha-Allah, be dissected and demolished further on in this article.

HANAFI MATH-HAB

“He who inhales medicine, then perceives the taste of the smoke in his throat, should make qadha of the fast.” (As-Sulaimaaniyyah)

“If water drawn into the nostrils reaches the brains, then qadha is obligatory.” (Al-Khazaanah, narrating from Imaam Abu Hanifah – Rahmatullah alayh) (The same ruling will apply to smoke inhaled intentionally).

“If he (intentionally) causes smoke to enter into his throat, his fast is invalidated, regardless of the type of smoke it may be. Thus, if he brings the incense close to him and smells its smoke, hence causing it to enter into his throat whilst he is aware of his fast, then his fast is broken. Whether (it be the smoke of) oudh, ambar or anything besides these two because it is possible to refrain from causing the muftir from entering the stomach. (Muftir is something which invalidates the fast.) Numerous people are oblivious of this fact.” (Haashiyatut Tahaawi ala Duraril Hukkaam)

“Or he intentionally causes smoke to enter his stomach or his brain, then the fast is invalidated because of the presence of something which breaks the fast. This applies to the smoke of substances other than ambar and oudh. And, in these two Kaffaarah also becoming incumbent is not far-fetched. Likewise (is the ruling) regarding the latest type of smoking which has been innovated in this age. (i.e. smoking tobacco and cigarettes)” (Maraaqil Falaah)

“On this basis, regarding the bid’ah which has been innovated presently—when it is smoked, Kaffaarah becomes obligatory. We supplicate to Allah for forgiveness and protection.” (Maraaqil Falaah Sharh Noorul Eedhaah)

“If he causes smoke to enter his throat, the fast is invalidated regardless of the type of smoke even if it is of oudh or ambar whilst he is aware (that he is fasting), for it is possible to abstain from it.” (Durrul Mukhtaar)

“From this, the ruling pertaining to smoking (tobacco) is known. In a poem Ash-Shurumbulaali said in his Sharah of Al-Wahbaaniyyah: “Its smoker during the fast, there is no doubt in the fast being invalidated.” (Raddul Muhtaar)

“If he inhales medicine and perceives its taste in his throat, he has to make qadha of the fast.” (Binaayah)

“If he causes it to enter into his throat, his fast is invalid. Thus if he inhales its smoke and causes it to enter into his throat, his fast breaks.” (Majma’ul Anhaar)

MAALIKI MATH-HAB

“The reaching of smoke in the throat by burning (something), e.g. oudh, similarly the smoke from a boiling pot of food, invalidate the fast just as the vapour by smoking a pipe.” (Manhul Jaleel Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel)

“It is obligatory to abstain from whatever reaches the throat, be it a substance which dissolves or not.” (Manhul Jaleel)

“He who inhales smoke or anything besides it whilst fasting, verily the fast is invalidated, for verily, the nose is the upper passage-way reaching the throat. On him is qadha (of the invalidated fast). And if it is during Ramaadhan, then (also) he will be liable for azaab (punishment) if he deliberately does so. …….Al-Lakhmi said: ‘Snuffing is prohibited. The snuffer is able to prevent it reaching the throat. There is no difference (of opinion) in the invalidation (of the fast).”

“What do you say regarding a person who smokes during the day of Ramadhaan? Is Kaffaarah obligatory?”

Answer: “Yes, Kaffaara is obligatory if it reaches in his stomach………In Al Mukhtasar (it appears): Regarding the smoke which (is acquired) by smoking, it invalidates (the fast) because it is a physical form. It reaches the throat. In fact sometimes it reaches even the stomach.”

“What do you say regarding the placement of smoke in the mouth between the lower lip and the teeth and spitting out the saliva tainted with it? Will the fasting person’s fast be invalidated, and will Kaffaarah be incumbent if this was do ne intentionally during Ramadhaan valid reason?”

Answer: Placement of smoke in this manner in without the mouth is in conflict with the reality of fasting which is to withhold from the lusts of the stomach and private organs from the rise of Fajr Saadiq until the completion of sunset with an intention……Its taste reaches the throat, for verily, the brain derives enjoyment from it just as the enjoyment of the smoke derived by sucking a pipe or by snuffing with it from the nose, or (this described in the question) is worse. There is no doubt in the invalidation of the fast and the obligation of the Greater Kaffaarah if this is done intentionally during Ramadhaan without valid reason. Fitr (the fast breaking) is more confirmed by it (i.e the smoking) that the fitr resulting from oiling the head and the taste reaching the throat from the pores, and (more confirmed) that inhaling the vapours from a (boiling) pot (of food). This is well known to the masses. When they hear that someone saying that the fast is not broken or that he hesitates in saying this (i.e. that the fast is broken), then they are surprised by it, and they attribute such a statement and hesitation to ignorance and little awareness (of reality). (Such as the ignorance of this copro-jaahil, Atabek)……… Therefore, how is it possible to aver that it does not invalidate the fast. Or to hesitate (in saying it breaks the fast)?

Abdul Haqq has narrated in Tahzeebut Taalib from As Sulamaaniyyah: ‘He who inhales medicine and perceives its taste in his throat, then most certainly his fast is broken…….They (the Fuqaha) have said that one who inhales vapour from a pot of food, very his fast is broken, for verily, the vapours of food have a physical form which strengthens the brain. Thus, the resultant acquisition is like that acquired by eating. It is not hidden that the mouth is the nearer to the throat than the nose and the pores of the head, and it (the mouth) is wider than both………” (Fathul Ulal Maalik fil Fataawa ala Mathhabil Imaamil Maalik)

“When the vapour of a pot of food reaches the throat, the fast is invalidated and qadhaa is incumbent. From this (i.e. the same ruling applies) is the vapours of smoking with a reed (or pipe).

When the vapour of food) reaches bukhoor or the vapour of a pot (of the throat, then qadha become obligatory because both of them are is physical body formed.” (Bulghatis Saalik li Aqrabal Masaalik)

“Vapours arising from lighting a pipe, and similarly the vapour of a pot—when it reaches the throat, qadha is compulsory. And from this is also with a pipe, etc., for verily, it reaches the throat. In fact (it reaches) the stomach.” (Haashiyah Ad-Dusooqi ala Sharhil Kabeer)

SHAAFI’ MATH-HAB

“In Baijurmi: The smoking which has now developed, which is called At-tatun,-May Allah curse the one who has initiated it – verily it is of the evil innovations. Our Shaikh Az-Ziyaadi used to issue fatwa in the beginning that the fast does not break because at that time he was not aware of its reality. However, when he saw its effect from the pipe with which it is smoked, then he retracted (his earlier view) and issued fatwa that it breaks the fast.” (I’aanatut Taalibeen)

“And from it (i.e. the things which invalidate the fast) is the popular kind of smoking.” (Nihaayatuz Zain)

“But, smoking tobacco is excluded (from the things which do not break the fast), for verily, from it physical form is acquired.” (Bushral Kareem)

“The popular smoking invalidates the fast just as the smoke of a wick.” (Tuhfatul Habeeb ala Sharhil Khateeb)

“If the vapour is from the popular smoking of this time, then it breaks the fast.” (Futuhaarul Wahhaab)

In the Kitaab, Al-Mausooatil Fiqhiyyah, the following is mentioned: “The Fuqaha are unanimous that the popular smoking during fasting breaks the fast because it is among the mufttariyaat (the things which break the fast).”

As his basis for his fallacy, Atabek citing from Hanafi texts, says:

“The red box states that dust particles, smoke, the taste of remedies/medicines and the smell of perfume do not break the fast. This evidence can also be found in the other authoritative works of the Hanafis such as Bahe ur Taiq, An Nahr, Fath al Qadir and Wilayah.

It is also to be found in a large number of Hanafi texts that using a steam room whilst fasting does not break your fast. In a steam room you are breathing in water vapour which also potentially enters your oesophagus (food), with a much larger volume or ‘dose’ of water than is given by an inhaler (albeit not pressurized).

The abovementioned trash is the only ‘daleel’ which Atabek has managed to hallucinate for his fallacious view that smoking does not break the fast.

Either he has deliberately and conveniently ignored the explicit texts stating the breaking of the fast with intentional smoke inhalation to be found in the large number of Hanafi texts, or he is unable to understand what is written in these authoritative kutub of the Ahnaaf and of the other Math-habs. The very same kutub from which he has cited the above, clearly state that intentional smoke inhalation breaks the fast. Refer to the references from the Hanafi texts quoted above.

There is absolutely nothing in the “red box” to bolster the trash disgorged by Atabek. Since he is not all that stupid to have understood the reality in the “red box”, he conveniently refrains from presenting the translation of the text from Al-Muheetul Burhaani. The text states:

“When dust, smoke, the taste of medicine and the fragrance of perfume is perceived in the throat, it does not invalidate his fast because abstention from it is not possible.”

This refers to the taste, dust, etc. entering the throat involuntarily and of its own accord, not by an act of the Saa-im (Fasting person). This distinguishing factor shall be explained further on.

Explaining the issue which appears to be an unfathomable conundrum for the deviate Atabek, the Kutub of the Ahnaaf state:

“It is said in Al-Burhaan: His fast does not break if dust enters his throat or the effect of the taste of medicine, because it is not possible to abstain from it as is mentioned in Al-Fath. I say that from this stems that when it is possible to abstain from dust which enters the throat, then the fast will be invalidated if he does so (i.e. if he intentionally casues it to enter into his throat). Az-Zaylai said: ‘When dust or a fly enters his throat (i.e. of its own accord) whilst he is aware of his fast, his fast does not break because he is unable to prevent this. Thus it resembles smoke (which enters of its own accord, not intentionally inhaled). This (ruling) is according to Istihsaan(application of discretion). However, according to Qiyaas the fast breaks because of a muftir reaching the stomach. …The reason for (adopting) Istihsaan is the inability to prevent it, hence it is like the moisture which remains in the mouth after rinsing (the mouth).

In Fathul Qadeer it is mentioned: “When vapour and dust enter the throat (of their own accord), the fast does not break, for verily, abstention from their entry is not possible from the nose when the mouth is closed.” I say: On this basis when he causes smoke to enter into his throat regardless of the type of smoke whilst he is aware of his fast, then his fast breaks. Whether it be (the smoke) of oudh or ambar or anything else because of the possibility of abstention from causing a muftir to enter in the stomach. Numerous people are oblivious of this.”

The deviate Atabek conveniently or ignorantly overlooks this categorical statement in Haashiyah Shurumbulaalui as well as in all other Hanafi texts.

In Maraaqil Falaah, it is mentioned: “…Or if he causes smoke to enter into his stomach or brain by his intentional action (then the fast will break) because of the presence of fitr………The same (ruling applies) to the smoking (i.e. of tobacco) which has been innovated in this era.”

In Raddul Muhtaar it appears as follows: “(The fast does not break if) dust or a fly or smoke enters the stomach whilst he is aware of his fast because of the impossibility to abstain from it. This is in terms of Istihsaan. The benefit (i.e. the logical conclusion) of this is that if he causes smoke to enter his throat whilst he is aware of his fast, the fast will break regardless of the whether it is oudh or ambar type of smoke because of the possibility of abstaining from it. Therefore be aware (and ponder) over this as Ash-Shrumbulaali has elaborated.”

Elaborating on the entry of dust or a fly or smoke which does not invalidate the fast, it is said in Raddul Muhtaar: “i.e. It (the dust, fly or smoke) with the entered of its own accord action of the fasting person.”

From all the Hanafi texts, it is abundantly clear that the Fuqaha have made a clear and categorical distinction between involuntary and voluntary inhalation of smoke. All the Hanafi kutub explicitly mention that while involuntary inhalation of smoke does not invalidate the fast, voluntary and intentional inhalation does invalidate the fast. The deviate has utilized the ruling applicable to involuntary inhalation to cigarette-smoking voluntary and intentional inhalation of smoke which is laden with harmful substances such as tar, nicotine, etc. which end up as solid formations inside the body.

In having ignored the ruling of the Fuqaha pertaining to voluntary and intentional inhalation of smoke, and deceptively and stupidly utilizing the ruling of involuntary inhalation for extravasating his copro-fatwa of baatil, Atabek has committed chicanery and skulduggery.

All the Fuqaha are unanimous in proclaiming the invalidation of the Fast if the fasting person intentionally inhales smoke.

In his three-page trash article, in more than two pages he abortively attempts to logically ‘prove’ that an asthma inhaler does not invalidate the fast. His stupid ‘proofs’ towards this end have already been refuted an demolished in the aforegoing discussion. Towards the end of his article of ghutha he arbitrarily, without making even an attempt to present any Shar’i daleel, claims that smoking cigarettes, tobacco, pipe and the like does not break the fast. Since he is totally bereft of Shar’i dalaa’il for his haraam excretion, he has miserably failed in his attempt. It is difficult to believe that he is unaware of the Consensus of the Fuqaha on this issue, namely, mal’oon smoking invalidates the fast. Smoking tobacco is not an act which has been innovated yesterday. Muslims have been smoking the accursed substances for several centuries, having acquired the accursed practice from the western kuffaar.

As explained above, the Fuqaha make a clear distinction between involuntary inhalation o f smoke and intentional inhaling. Whilst the former does not break the fast, the latter does invalidate the fast. It is indeed mind-boggling to believe that the intentional inhalation and consumption of a physical substance with all its poisonous, harmful and haraam effects does not render the fast invalid. The deviate jaahil treats this serious issue with extreme insignificance. Lacking in fear for Allah Ta’ala he is prepared to destroy the Ramadhaan Fasts of innumerable stupid Muslims who are addicted to the shaitaani practice of smoking in the style of the inmates of Hell. He appears to have no Imaani idea of accountability and the assumption of the burdens of the sins of others whom he is satanically misguiding.

Indeed it is only a brain deranged and destroyed by the affliction of RIJS divinely inflicted on the followers of shaitaan that fails to understand that the intentional inhalation of clouds of poisonous smoke filled with poisonous tar, nicotine, etc., which gather and block the lungs, arteries and the other organs of the body do not invalidate the Fast. The inhalation of tobacco smoke which travels from the mouth and nose down the throat into the lungs and other organs, including the stomach, causes all these organs to rot with cancer. The throat rots, the lungs rot, the heart rots the liver rots, the pancreas rots, the kidneys rot and the rest of the body putrefies. The smoke enters the brain and causes it to also rot.

All substances, be it inedible , which are intentionally ingested and which reach the throat or the brain or the stomach, nullify the Fast. Only zindeeq juhala deny this Shar’i reality. The Fuqaha state that even ignoramuses wonder at the jahl of the one who holds the view that the intentional ingestion of smoke via the mouth break the fast.

The Fatwa of the Fuqaha, viz., smoking invalidates the Fast, has not been designed for deterring people from this haraam poison as the deviate seeks to convey. The objective of the Fatwa is to save the Ramadhaan Fasts of people – stupid people – who may be misled by moron Haatibil Lail Zindeeq so-called ‘scholars’ who are bereft of valid Ilm of the Deen.

Atabek Shukurov claims to follow the Hanafi and Maturidi schools. However his basic usool, and many of his fatwas at times contradict all of the Hanafis, whilst at other times contradict the vast majority of the Hanafis. Yet he deceives his audience by claiming to be Hanafi and Maturidi. In reality he follows the Mu’tazila school in Aqidah, and the Wahabi school in fiqh (since both he and the wahabis make their own fiqh up as they go along).

Here is an example where Atabek follows the Mu’tazila school and rejects the Prophet:

In the prologue of his book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith” he says that Ibn Hajar (d.1449/852) said regarding the Hadith in Bukhari where the Prophet has magic done upon him, it’s ‘only rejected by heretics’. He then goes on state that the Hanafis have ‘instead rejected it outright based on their classical principles’.

The point about the Hanafis rejecting the Hadith will come later, but it’s important to note here that Badr al-Din al-‘Aini (d.1453/855) a famous Hanafi scholar who was a contemporary of Ibn Hajar said the exact same thing about those who reject this Hadith. Al-’Aini says

He states ‘Imam Abi Mansur al-Maturidi (d.994/333)… denied the notion that the Prophet was affected by black magic at all and rejected this Hadith. He (al-Maturidi) also said the reason for the revelation (Asbab al-Nuzul) of ‘Surah Falaq’ and ‘Surah al-Nas’… was not as a result of magic at all…’

Having referred to the two places of references he gives to the above observation, the first point where al-Maturidi supposedly rejects the Hadith, has no mention of the Hadith. As for the Tafsīr of Surah Falaq, then he actually does mention this Hadith as a Sabab al-Nuzul and also quotes ‘al-Faqih’ (initially I thought he was referring to the Hanafi Abu Nasr al-‘Iyadi, but Mufti Muntasir Zaman pointed out that it seems that ‘al-Faqih was added by the scribe to clarify when al-Maturidi is making his own point) defending the Hadith from the Mu’tazili al ’Asam. Here’s the Arabic:

4) He states ‘Imam Abu Bakr Jassas al-Razi al-Hanafi… stated ‘the ignorant of the Hashawis (anthropomorphists) narrated this Hadith without knowing it was fabricated’.

He has here accurately presented Jassas’s view but is this one quote enough from a Hanafi sufficed to claim this is the Hanafi view? When looked at carefully we realise that this was a Mu’tazili view, a group which Jassas is famous to have been influenced by (as mentioned by al-Dhahabī and proven with examples by the contemporary Hanafi, Sa’id Bakdqsh). We have already seen al-Maturidi refute the Mu’tazili al-‘Asamm for this view by quoting Abu Nasr al-’Iyadi (or referring to himself). Furthermore, Jassas never attributes this view to the founders of the Hanafi school let alone claim this was the Madhab in any way or form.

Interestingly, this very same Hadith was quoted by Abu Ja’far al-Tahawo, who is senior to Jassas, approvingly in his Sharh Mushkil al-Athar.

Finally, the late Hanafi scholar, Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (d.1933) took Jassas to task specifically on the point that the Hadith somehow affects the truth of the Prophet’s Prophethood, where he states

In the above, Imam Maturido responds to the Mu’tazili contention that the Prophet being affected by magic in some way denounces his claim to Prophet-hood. Maturidi states that in fact that the Prophet being affected by magic, can establish his claim to Prophet-hood in two ways

1) That the Prophet was informed through revelation that he had magic performed on him, this could not be possible for a false Prophet.

2) That by the recitation of the Quran the magic was negated; this shows the truth of the Quran. (end of description of quote).

The following is an example of Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi using the passive voice ‘qila‘ (it is said), and he accepts the opinion:

In this era in close proximity to Qiyaamah, the world abounds with juhala and mudhilleen who pose as ‘authorities’ of the Shariah when in reality they grope and grovel in a quagmire of jahaalat. One such jaahil whose articles and stupid ‘fatwas’ are loaded with hogwash and nafsaani flotsam, is one Atabek Shukurov who has set himself up as an ‘authority’ of the Hanafi Math-hab whilst he dwells in a mire of jahl-e-murakkab.

Some of the flotsam ‘fatwas’ of this mudhil have crossed our part. Insha-Allah, we shall respond in detail in refutation of the copro-jahl with which his ‘fatwas’ of jahl are besmirched. Here we briefly make mention of some of his haraam ‘fatwas’ of jahaalat to alert Muslims of this mudhil agent of Iblees. It is mentioned in the Hadith that in times close to the approach of Qiyaamah, there will be shayaateen masquerading as human beings. They will deliver lectures, give fatwas and even recite the Qur’aan Majeed right inside the Musjid to lure and ensnare Muslims into their den of Imaani destruction. It appears that this Atabek character is one of those shayaateenimudhilleen predicted in the Ahaadith.

This jaahil has written considerable drivel and hogwash in his stupid ‘fatwas’ on the issues of mortgages, homosexuality, smoking, etc. If Allah Ta’ala grants us the taufeeq, we shall demolish all the rubbish which this latest mudhil has excreted in his ‘fatwas’ which are the copro-effects of his jahl-e-murakkab.

In brief, we apprize the Ummah of the Haqq of the masaa-il which the mudhil coprocreep has convoluted and corrupted with his jahaalat which may be deliberate and designed to further the scheme of Iblees in his mission of undermining and destroying Islam.

Know and understand well that all bank loans are interest-bearing. There is no type of loan given by a bank which is free of interest/riba. Atabek’s laborious and abortive attempt to ‘prove’ that bank interest is not Riba, is the effect of shaitaan having gripped his brains. Just as the mushrikeen of Arabia would say: “Trade is like Riba.”, hence it should be halaal, so too, does this agent of Iblees, Atabek say: “Bank interest is taukeel.” This agent of shaitaan is at war with Allah and His Rasool, for the Qur’aan Majeed issues the following ultimatum of war:

“…If you do not desist (from devouring riba), then take notice of WAR from Allah and His Rasool.”

By no stretch of Imaani logic and Fiqhi logic can such clear-cut Riba charged by banks, ever be interpreted to mean anything other than Riba. Therefore, all bank loans are haraam. All such loans are encumbered with interest which no brand of interpretation can ever cancel.

Homosexuality is HARAAM. Homosexuals are worse than adulterers. Islam prescribes the severest punishment for homosexuals. If homosexuality is proved in the court of the Qaadhi, even the death penalty may be applicable. Atabek’s article is designed to placate the palates of his western kuffaar masters whom he is bootlicking.

Smoking breaks the fast. The arguments in negation of this mas’alah are baseless. Insha-Allah, a detailed response shall be forthcoming for the khuraafaat (drivel and trash) which Atabek has expectorated.